Custom Duty judiciary-2

Redemption fine of 10% & penalty of 5% of value of goods is sufficient punishment to importer

Sai International Vs Shri S.S Garg (CESTAT Bangalore)

Just 3 days to Join GST Online Certification Course by GST Professionals & – Batch II Issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been settled and now various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the redemption fine of 10% of the value of the goods and penalty of 5% of […]...

Read More

Assessee not allowed to appear with Counsel to Record Statement U/s. 108 of Customs Act

Pawan Kumar Pawan Arora Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)

In view of law laid down by Apex Court in case of Poolpandi & Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise & Others, presence of counsel refusal during interrogation/recording the statement of a person under Customs Act would not be violative of Article 20 (3) and 21 of Constitution of India....

Read More

Custodian of Goods cannot deny his liability for export of Illicit Goods

M/s. Sanco Trans Ltd Vs The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras High Court)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee challenging an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 confirming imposition of penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act (in short Act) though reducing the quantum from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs....

Read More

Conditions for Admitting appeal U/s. 130E(b) of Customs Act: SC

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Designation Authority (Supreme Court of India)

SC held that before admitting an appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, the following conditions must be satisfied: (i) The question raised or arising must have a direct and/or proximate nexus to the question of determination of the applicable rate of duty or to the determination of the value of the goods for the purposes of ass...

Read More

Registration of FIR is not necessary before arresting a person U/s. 104 of Customs Act

Kishin S. Loungani Vs. Union Of India (High Court Of Kerala at Ernakulam)

It is apparent that the proceedings conducted by an officer of the Central Excise are vitally different from the investigation by a police officer. It is implicit that a person who is making a statement before a Central Excise Officer can be called upon to sign the statement. On a combined reading of Sections 13 and 14, it is clear that a...

Read More

Simultaneous penalty on firm & partners restricted to abetment

M/s. Amritlakshmi Machine Works Vs The Commissioner of Customs (Import) (Bombay High Court)

Bombay High Court held that Simultaneous penalty can be imposed both on the partners and partnership-firm under Section 112 (a) where the charge on the firm is of acting or omitting to act rendering the goods liable for confiscation and the notice issued to the partner makes out a separate case of abetment on his part. ...

Read More

Charges having no nexus with import not includible in AV of imported goods

M/s Schwing Stetter (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)

The Appellant imported machinery i.e. Schwing mobile concrete pump placers from their related supplier. Though both the foreign supplier and the Appellant are related, as per the O-I-O of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB) dated December 22, 2000...

Read More

CESTAT Requests CBEC to issue appropriate Guideline to Quasi-Judicial Authorities

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs M/s. Do Best Infoway (CESTAT Chennai)

Revenue has come in appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the order passed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the assessment enhancing the declared value in respect of imported aluminium foil paper from China....

Read More

Custom valuation Rule 4 will not apply if Import is without monetary consideration: SC

M/s GMR Energy Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Supreme Court of India)

In the Case of M/s GMR Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of the assessee and of the revenue held that Rules 4 and 9 of the Custom Valuation Rules, 1988 would only apply in case imported goods are sold for export to India....

Read More

Recovery cannot be made from bonfide purchaser of DFIA/DEPB license – CESTAT

Sumit Wool Processors Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai)

In the case of Sumit Wool Processors vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) it was held that it is a settled law that even a license obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts is only voidable and not void ab-initio. It is good in law until it is avoided....

Read More
Page 1 of 912345...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,403)
Company Law (3,301)
Custom Duty (6,465)
DGFT (3,371)
Excise Duty (4,011)
Fema / RBI (3,191)
Finance (3,350)
Income Tax (24,688)
SEBI (2,686)
Service Tax (3,273)

Featured Posts

Search Posts by Date

June 2017
« May